Grazing permits have been purchased and retired by third-party conservation
organizations/funders throughout the West. 1 Third-party
buyouts are three-way agreements between (1) a grazing permittee who is willing
to end his/her public lands grazing in exchange for compensation; (2) a land
management agency that will "retire" the associated allotment from
further livestock grazing; and (3) a conservation organization/funder willing
and able to pay the permittee to relinquish his/her permit or lease back to
the government. In a few situations, a second government agency has provided
the funds for permit buyout.

Perhaps two or three third-party buyouts occur each year, usually in specially
designated areas such as national parks and wilderness areas. While third-party
buyouts have been useful for retiring grazing permits in specific areas, increasing
permittee demand for permit buyout far outpaces permit retirement by this method.

Third-party buyouts are limited by the finite amount of private funding available
for permit acquisition and the inescapable fact that they are not permanent.
Permit buyout is generally prohibited under current law, which advises agency
managers to transfer grazing permits to new graziers upon the resignation or
retirement of the previous permittee. Agencies willing to participate in third-party
buyouts typically "retire" permits for 10-15 years, and sometimes
for lesser periods, by amending the current allotment or resource management
plan to reallocate 100 percent of the available forage to wildlife and watersheds.
However, these plans are regularly reviewed by the same managing agencies pursuant
to federal law, at which point they can choose to reopen allotments for grazing.
No law prohibits an agency from reinstating livestock grazing on allotments
retired by third-party buyout, and livestock grazing could be reintroduced in
several ways, including by a local district manager via another planning amendment
or by order of a new administration in Washington, DC.

If enacted, the Multiple-Use Conflict Resolution Act would would permanently
retire many more permits than private conservation groups could hope to obtain,
whiledepending on the level of permittee participationpotentially
save taxpayers billions of dollars.